5 critically acclaimed games that reviewers were wrong about

agree with the list, especially the sorry excuse for gta4 port. I wonder how many reviewers couldn't `t get the game to play properly, and just copied their console reviews. If the game doesn`t load any textures, they should teach them a lesson and review it as a game with no textures.

World of Warcraft... no fun at all for me. Been playing it for a while now expecting it to get better, but it doesn`t.
 
Yeah Black and White is a bloody amazing game! I would still play it, but I have lost my install disc :(. Black and WHite 2 was also damn amazing.
 
Jabberwocky said:
agree with the list, especially the sorry excuse for gta4 port. I wonder how many reviewers couldn't `t get the game to play properly, and just copied their console reviews. If the game doesn`t load any textures, they should teach them a lesson and review it as a game with no textures.

World of Warcraft... no fun at all for me. Been playing it for a while now expecting it to get better, but it doesn`t.
Click to expand...

i think the worrying thing is that you been playing it for a while and keep on playing :wtf:
 
OmegaFenix said:
Dead Space was a brilliant game. Rave didn't like it coz the PC port sucked ballz.
Click to expand...

the PC port sucked???? it seemed to be fine on mine, apart from the over the shoulder viewpoint and slighty clunky close-quarter combat, i thought it was pretty damn good :confused:
 
Last edited:
Kurike said:
the PC port sucked???? it seemed to be fine on mine, apart from the over the shoulder viewpoint and slighty clunky close-quarter combat, i thought it was pretty damn good :confused:
Click to expand...

Console version was better. I heard bad things about the PC port. Maybe it wasn't a constant issue.
 
with Dead Space while the console version was better, the pc port was by no means crap.

i played it on pc first and had no issues, ran smooth as silk. controls were a bit iffy but when i switched to a game pad that was fixed aswell
 
I have to disagree with 3 games in that list:

1 - Modern Warfare 2

This game is amazing! It had the best MP to date (Before the hackers arrived)and the SP was fun and engaging (Yes it was short, but most FPS's are). The MP introduced call signs, had next to no lag (Not as good a MAG in the lag department)and the maps were quite nice. And Spec Ops was a fantastic new feature!!

2 - Black and White

I really don't understand how you could put this game in that list?! It has got to be one of the most original games to date. It was very detailed and the controls were solid. Yes it could get a bit tedious at times but honestly those moments were few and far between. And whats up with the screen shot for the game??? You chose one that was obviously running on a PC that could not run the game properly! The graphics are MUCH better than that! Of all the games on the list this should NOT be one of them.

3 - Empire: Total War

Now I can agree with your point that yes it had game breaking bug literally in the begging but come on! To say that its still very buggy is an injustice! I have put in over 700hrs into that game and honestly is has changed sooo much since its release. And anyway if you're talking about bugs then why don't you put Fallout New Vegas up there instead? That game was and still is as buggy as hell!
I can agree that the AI was not up to scratch in E:TW though, but I think we can cut Creative Assembly some slack. After all all of their other games before E:TW were sword fighting games so of course the AI won't be up to scratch but I think that even though it was their first outing into the gunpowder age they did pretty well with the AI. Also look at the new features like naval battles, trade theaters, trade routes (In more detail than in M2:TW)... So I think the reviewers got it right, I think in this case the good out ways the bad.
 
I kinda agree with the MW2 one though. The SP was blatantly short (even shorter than MW's SP) and a lot of it seemed a carbon copy of MW SP in any case - especially the ending. I had a huge WTF moment there.

As for the MP - I never played it ... but I've heard enough people complaining about even before the hackers arrived. And the price tag put me right off buying it at all)

(I played the single player campaign through at a mate's place - before anyone wants to level piracy charges :p )
 
Let's see, Black & White is an all-time favourite game of mine, played it, own it, love it and its sequel. Metacritic gave it a 'metascore' of 90 (based on 34 critic reviews). According to 6,934 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.6.

GTAIV, was decent, lacked a lot of the appeal of the original games but was still very enjoyable. Metacritic gave it a 'metascore' of 90 (based on 40 critic reviews). According to 8,869 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.1.

Fable 2, I've never played only because I don't own a 360 and was hoping it would make it to PC like its predecessor. Metacritic gave it 'metascore' of 89 (based on 95 critics). According to 14,595 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.6.

I feel our writer's opinion is in the significant minority here. Seriously, "5 well-reviewed games the critics were wrong about" what are you basing this title on? Personal conjecture?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be one of the first people in the world to say that the majority is more often wrong than not (look at all the folk who believe Paris Hilton or Justin Beiber can sing). But to criticise games based on such minor flaws is nothing short of gross hyperbole.

I never had a single problem with GTAIV. I loved Black & White despite its "tedium." And criticising Fable II for, basically, not being a serious RPG (read: depth, character development, too easy)? You realise that your complaints would mostly apply to its predecessor as well? It's not a serious RPG, nor does it take itself too seriously.

The question needs to be raised: does the writer understand the nature of these games? The only one with valid criticism, really, is GTAIV and even there, the majority of players (8,869 on Gamespot) disagreed.

And that's the fact of the matter--it's not just the critics who disagree with you.

Then again, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the writer who believes that RPGs like Dragon Age should have co-op/multiplayer?
 
Last edited:
Lycanthrope said:
Let's see, Black & White is an all-time favourite game of mine, played it, own it, love it and its sequel. Metacritic gave it a 'metascore' of 90 (based on 34 critic reviews). According to 6,934 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.6.

GTAIV, was decent, lacked a lot of the appeal of the original games but was still very enjoyable. Metacritic gave it a 'metascore' of 90 (based on 40 critic reviews). According to 8,869 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.1.

Fable 2, I've never played only because I don't own a 360 and was hoping it would make it to PC like its predecessor. Metacritic gave it 'metascore' of 89 (based on 95 critics). According to 14,595 player votes on Gamespot, it averaged 8.6.

I feel our writer's opinion is in the significant minority here. Seriously, "5 well-reviewed games the critics were wrong about" what are you basing this title on? Personal conjecture?

Don't get me wrong, I'd be one of the first people in the world to say that the majority is more often wrong than not (look at all the folk who believe Paris Hilton or Justin Beiber can sing). But to criticise games based on such minor flaws is nothing short of gross hyperbole.

I never had a single problem with GTAIV. I loved Black & White despite its "tedium." And criticising Fable II for, basically, not being a serious RPG (read: depth, character development, too easy)? You realise that your complaints would mostly apply to its predecessor as well? It's not a serious RPG, nor does it take itself too seriously.

The question needs to be raised: does the writer understand the nature of these games? The only one with valid criticism, really, is GTAIV and even there, the majority of players (8,869 on Gamespot) disagreed.

And that's the fact of the matter--it's not just the critics who disagree with you.

Then again, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you also the writer who believes that RPGs like Dragon Age should have co-op/multiplayer?
Click to expand...

This piece is published as a column, and I don't think Chris meant for it to be anything more than that. Perhaps we should have titled it "5 well-reviewed games that I didn't like".

Looking at meta-review averages, popular opinion generally lines up with critical reception. So a game earning an 80%+ review average will be generally liked by gamers. Therefore, I don't see how he could have chosen 5 well reviewed games that he did not like, without falling into a minority group with his choices. He would have to find 5 games that reviewers loved, but that the majority of gamers hated. I challenge anyone to do that.

So there was never any question as to whether or not Chris' views were going to be counter to those held by the majority of gamers. The idea of the article was to stimulate discussion, and I think he makes valid points.

I actually enjoyed Modern Warfare 2, despite its technical flaws. Still, he is certainly not alone on this one, as many gamers' seem to have been disappointed with MW2.

As for Empire: Total War; for those who played it in its early release state, the game was a shambles. I reviewed it myself, giving it 68%, which was the lowest score I saw online. And I certainly was not alone on that, my review was posted around the internet and you can read the comments below to see how many people agreed, or felt I had been too kind.

In fairness, the game is in a much better state, but I have little sympathy for publishers who release a incomplete games.

Black & White remains a classic for me, although it did not quite live up to the hopes I had for it.

I never understood why Fable or Fable II was such a big deal, but I suspect had it not been a 360 exclusive it would not have gathered that much support, similar to The Guild series. I never found Fable II a particularly compelling gameplay experience.

I also never got into any of the GTA series. I always found them repetitive and lacking depth.
 
Last edited:
GTA definitely. Few games manage to run slowly *and* look kak at the same time but that was one of them.

B&W was pretty solid...but suffered from a fatal flaw: Without patches, the animal forgets everything each new mission so you start from scratch every time.
 
Tinman said:
This piece is published as a column, and I don't think Chris meant for it to be anything more than that. Perhaps we should have titled it "5 well-reviewed games that I didn't like".
Click to expand...
That might've been less inflammatory :)

Looking at meta-review averages, popular opinion generally lines up with critical reception. So a game earning an 80%+ review average will be generally liked by gamers. Therefore, I don't see how he could have chosen 5 well reviewed games that he did not like, without falling into a minority group with his choices. He would have to find 5 games that reviewers loved, but that the majority of gamers hated. I challenge anyone to do that.
Click to expand...

No, no--title reads quite clearly that those games are apparently "rubbish." As I said, it was inflammatory (or just sensationalistic, if you'd prefer :p).

So there was never any question as to whether or not Chris' views were going to be counter to those held by the majority of gamers. The idea of the article was to stimulate discussion, and I think he makes valid points.
Click to expand...

GTAIV was badly optimised for many (PC) systems, I agree, this is a valid point. Does that make the game, as a whole, rubbish? Black & White was released in 2001, for goodness sakes, sure it was clunky in some aspects but it made up for that and many others while appealing to the kind of gamer who enjoys god-sims. It was an innovative game which made up for many of its clunky aspects in its sequel. Does this make it rubbish?

I actually enjoyed Modern Warfare 2, despite its technical flaws. Still, he is certainly not alone on this one, as many gamers' seem to have been disappointed with MW2.
Click to expand...

I can't comment on that because I haven't played it.

As for Empire: Total War; for those who played it in its early release state, the game was a shambles. I reviewed it myself, giving it 68%, which was the lowest score I saw online. And I certainly was not alone on that, my review was posted around the internet and you can read the comments below to see how many people agreed, or felt I had been too kind.

In fairness, the game is in a much better state, but I have little sympathy for publishers who release a incomplete games.
Click to expand...
Haven't played it either.

Black & White remains a classic for me, although it did not quite live up to the hopes I had for it.
Click to expand...
I don't understand, what hopes did you have for it? It was revolutionary. The only god-sims before it were pretty much Populous and Powermonger. I consider Black & White to be the only true god-sim ever.

It's impossibly daft to consider it "rubbish" purely because Chris considered it "clunky" (read: a non-cohesive experience) and tedious after a length of time. I'd love to see Chris' take on JRPGs, now there's tedium, but it appeals to a certain market (I play one or two over the course of a year because I generally don't have the patience to sit through to completion in the way I do other games).

I never understood why Fable or Fable II was such a big deal, but I suspect had it not been a 360 exclusive it would not have gathered that much support, similar to The Guild series. I never found Fable II a particularly compelling gameplay experience.
Click to expand...

It's the world, the atmosphere and the sort of innocence of it. As I said, I haven't played F2, but the appeal in the Fable series, to me, has always been the fact that it is a "cutesy" game that doesn't take itself too seriously. It's not a hardcore RPG and I enjoy it for what it is, not for what I want it to be.

Look at the Overlord series: it's not a series to be taken as seriously as say... The Witcher. It's a cutesy game with a playful and ambivalent atmosphere. It doesn't try to be too serious and it doesn't try to be too cute, it's just a game that stands on its own merits as quirky and enjoyable.

It's why I had to have a bit of a jaw-dropper that Fable II was criticised for being too short (Fable 1 was maybe 8-12 hours for a single play-through?) and not having enough depth and character development. As I said, this is the same writer who criticised Dragon Age II for not having implemented co-op to extend its longevity; it's why I asked, does the writer understand the nature of the games he's criticising and the markets they appeal to?

It's like playing Diablo and complaining about the fact that it's linear, lacks depth and boils down to just a hack-and-slash fest. I can't stand it, sure, but that's the appeal and it markets itself to a crowd that enjoys it.

I also never got into any of the GTA series. I always found them repetitive and
Click to expand...

The thing with the GTA series is that they've lost a lot of what they started with. I miss the gangs (Yakuza FTW) and the silly mechanics that would buff certain attributes (gyming for strength) and the hair stylists/clothing stores from games like San Andreas. I thought GTAIV was by far the best story and plot in a long time, but it felt horribly linear and, although it was a sandbox/semi-open world, as though there was nothing really to DO.

Maybe I've just misunderstood Chris' article, but to list an absolute classic like Black & White under a heading of "5 rubbish games that reviewers loved" without considering the time it was released, the innovation it brought about and that for many, it was a game which was played again and again and replayed some more until its sequel came about just smacks of a lack of appreciation for a game that was, for many people at the time, revolutionary :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top